Criminal Law Commons^™

Finding "Tapia Error": How Circuit Courts Have Misread 'Tapia V. United States' And Shortchanged The Penological Goals Of The Sentencing Reform Act, Matt J. Gornick

Vanderbilt Law Review

The American criminal justice system is called many things; "compassionate" is usually not one of them. Yet in the course of federal criminal proceedings, a sentencing hearing allows a judge to convey compassion toward a defendant, if only to say, "I'm sorry about your situation, but this is how I must apply the law." Likewise, a defendant might throw herself on the mercy of the court in hopes that the judge exercises discretion compassionately. Mitigating factors and downward departures suggest that judges are capable of doing so. But how does a sentencing judge show compassion, as opposed to simply feeling …

The Right To Domain Silent: Rebalancing Tort Incentives To Keep Pace With Information Availability For Criminal Suspects And Arrestees, Laura K. Mckenzie

Vanderbilt Law Review

One nondescript evening, Dale Menard waited in a park for a friend to pick him up.When his friend did not arrive on schedule, Menard looked into the window of a nearby retirement home to check the time. Shortly thereafter, Menard was arrested based on a resident's prowler report and held by the Los Angeles Police Department for two days. The arrest was based purely on a misunderstanding, and the LAPD never brought charges against Menard. The police did, however, forward his arrest record and fingerprints to the FBI as part of a routine record exchange. One misunderstanding culminated in extended …

The Price Of Silence: How The Griffin Roadblock And Protection Against Adverse Inference Condemn The Criminal Defendant, Kelsey Craig

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1965, the Supreme Court held in Griffin v. California that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination prohibits judges and prosecutors from pointing to a defendant's failure to testify as substantive evidence of guilt. This doctrine assumes that such a prosecutorial or judicial "adverse comment" compels a negative inference-that the defendant is hiding something. The Griffin Court held that this assumption amounts to an unfair penalty on a defendant's invocation of a constitutionally protected right. This doctrine, however, makes a dangerous misstep in additionally assuming that the prohibition of adverse comment and the administration of limiting instructions curtail a …

The International Reach Of Criminal Copyright Infringement Laws, Sara K. Morgan

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Piracy and illegal downloading in the Internet age have been on the forefront of the intellectual property community's mind since the early 2000s. Websites such as The Pirate Bay are often labeled as being leaders in copyright infringement, giving users the ability to illegally download thousands of files. However, there are both jurisdictional and extradition issues with prosecuting the founders of these websites, because The Pirate Bay and many others like it are often based in other countries. Recently, the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act have stirred up controversy, with many alleging that their international reach went …

Response: The Icc, Pre-Existing Jurisdictional Treaty Regimes, And The Limits Of The Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Doctrine--A Reply To Michael Newton, Carsten Stahn

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

It is a pleasure and a privilege to provide a few reflections on Michael Newton's thought-provoking essay on "How the ICC Threatens Treaty Norms." His article marks an important piece of scholarship. It reflects significant concerns about the reach and function of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that merit further attention and explanation in ICC practice. Newton makes a provocative argument. He argues that the ICC might undermine sovereign law enforcement efforts and exceed its powers if it exercises jurisdiction over American forces in Afghanistan or Israeli offenses in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. This argument is not …

How The International Criminal Court Threatens Treaty Norms, Michael A. Newton

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article demonstrates the disadvantages of permitting a supranational institution like the International Criminal Court (ICC) to aggrandize its authority by overriding agreements between sovereign states. The Court's constitutive power derives from a multilateral treaty designed to augment sovereign enforcement efforts rather than annul them. Treaty negotiators expressly rejected efforts to confer jurisdiction to the ICC based on its aspiration to advance universal values or a self-justifying teleological impulse to bring perpetrators to justice. Rather, its jurisdiction derives solely from the delegation by States Parties of their own sovereign prerogatives. In accordance with the ancient maxim "nemo plus iuris transfer …

Divided We Fall: How The International Criminal Court Can Promote Compliance With International Law By Working With Regional Courts, Tatiana E. Sainati

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Kenya's 2007 presidential elections inflamed deep-seeded ethnic tensions in the country, sparking violence that left thousands dead and more than half-a-million civilians displaced. After the bloodshed, Kenya failed to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the atrocities. The Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched an investigation into the Kenyan situation, acting under his statutory authority, and eventually brought charges against six high-ranking Kenyans, including President Kenyatta. After years of investigations, the Prosecutor ultimately withdrew the case against the Kenyan President--a potentially fatal failure heralded by some as the death knell of the ICC.

During the course of …

Ukraine And The International Criminal Court: Implications Of The Ad Hoc Jurisdiction Acceptance And Beyond, Dr. Iryna Marchuk

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Article examines an array of important legal issues that arise out of the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court by Ukraine, a non-State Party to the Rome Statute, within the framework of Article 12(3) with respect to the alleged crimes against humanity committed during the 2014 Maydan protests (Declaration I) and the alleged war crimes committed in eastern Ukraine and Crimea (Declaration II). It provides an in-depth analysis of constitutional law issues linked to the acceptance of the jurisdiction by Ukraine and discusses its possible implications on the proceedings before the ICC. The Article criticizes the …

Law & Neuroscience: What, Why, And Where To Begin, Owen D. Jones, Jeffrey D. Schall, Francis X. Shen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This provides the Summary Table of Contents and Chapter 1 of our coursebook “Law and Neuroscience” (forthcoming April 2014, from Aspen Publishing). Designed for use in both law schools and beyond, the book provides user-friendly introductions, as well as detailed explorations, of the many current and emerging issues at the intersection of law and neuroscience.

One part of the book lays general foundations by exploring the relationships between law and science generally, and by comparing the views from law and from neuroscience regarding behavior and responsibility. A later part explains the basics of brain structure and function, the methods for …

Parsing The Behavioral And Brain Mechanisms Of Third-Party Punishment, Owen D. Jones, Matthew Ginther, Richard J. Bonnie, Morris B. Hoffman, Francis X. Shen, Kenneth W. Simons, Rene Marois

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The evolved capacity for third-party punishment is considered crucial to the emergence and maintenance of elaborate human social organization and is central to the modern provision of fairness and justice within society. Although it is well established that the mental state of the offender and the severity of the harm he caused are the two primary predictors of punishment decisions, the precise cognitive and brain mechanisms by which these distinct components are evaluated and integrated into a punishment decision are poorly understood.

Using a brain-scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we implemented a novel experimental design to …

What Gideon Did, Sara Mayeux

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Many accounts of Gideon v Wainwright s legacy focus on what Gideon did not do--its doctrinal and practical limits. For constitutional theorists, Gideon imposed a preexisting national consensus upon a few "outlier" states, and therefore did not represent a dramatic doctrinal shift. For criminal procedure scholars, advocates, and journalists, Gideon has failed, in practice, to guarantee meaningful legal help for poor people charged with crimes. Drawing on original historical research, this Article instead chronicles what Gideon did-the doctrinal and institutional changes it inspired between 1963 and the early 1970s. Gideon shifted the legal profession's policy consensus on indigent defense away …

The Invisible Revolution In Plea Bargaining: Managerial Judging And Judicial Participation In Negotiations, Nancy J. King, Ronald F. Wright

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article, the most comprehensive study of judicial participation in plea negotiations since the 1970s, reveals a stunning array of new procedures that involve judges routinely in the settlement of criminal cases. Interviewing nearly 100 judges and attorneys in ten states, we found that what once were informal, disfavored interactions have quietly, without notice, transformed into highly structured, best practices for docket management. We learned of grant-funded, problem-solving sessions complete with risk assessments and real-time information on treatment options; multi-case conferences where other lawyers chime in; settlement courts located at the jail; settlement dockets with retired judges; full-blown felony mediation …

Overcriminalization's New Harm Paradigm, Todd Haugh

Vanderbilt Law Review

The harms of overcriminalization are usually thought of in a particular way-that the proliferation of criminal laws leads to increasing and inconsistent criminal enforcement and adjudication. For example, an offender commits an unethical or illegal act and, because of the overwhelming depth and breadth of the criminal law, becomes subject to too much prosecutorial discretion and faces disparate enforcement or punishment. But there is an additional, possibly more pernicious, harm of overcriminalization. Drawing from the fields of criminology and behavioral ethics, this Article makes the case that overcriminalization actually increases the commission of criminal behavior itself, particularly by white collar …

Misdemeanor Decriminalization, Alexandra Natapoff

Vanderbilt Law Review

As the United States reconsiders its stance on mass incarceration, misdemeanor decriminalization has emerged as an increasingly popular reform. Seen as a potential cure for crowded jails and an overburdened defense bar, many states are eliminating jail time for minor offenses such as marijuana possession and driving violations, replacing those crimes with so-called "nonjailable" or "fine-only" offenses. This form of reclassification is widely perceived as a way of saving millions of state dollars-nonjailable offenses do not trigger the right to counsel-while easing the punitive impact on defendants, and it has strong support from progressives and conservatives alike. But decriminalization has …

Criminal Asset Forfeiture And The Sixth Amendment After "Southern Union" And "Alleyne:" State-Level Ramifications, Brynn Applebaum

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Founding Fathers thought the jury-trial right was so fundamental to our system of justice that they included it in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The right to trial by jury serves to protect criminal defendants against government overreaching by ensuring that they will be judged by their fellow citizens.' And as a whole, our system of justice and our citizenry have remained committed to the jury trial. But since the Founding, the Supreme Court has narrowed the application of the Sixth Amendment's guaranty.

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court decided in Libretti v. United States that …

The Right To Remain Armed, Jeffrey Bellin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The laws governing gun possession are changing rapidly. In the past two years, federal courts have wielded a revitalized Second Amendment to invalidate longstanding gun carrying restrictions in Chicago, the District of Columbia, and throughout California. Invoking similar Second Amendment themes, legislators across the country have steadily deregulated public gun carrying, preempting municipal gun control ordinances in cities like Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Cleveland. These changes to substantive gun laws reverberate through the constitutional criminal procedure framework. By making it lawful for citizens to carry guns even in crowded urban areas, enhanced Second Amendment rights trigger Fourth Amendment protections that could …

Explaining Inhumanity: The Use Of Crime-Definition Experts At International Criminal Courts, Caroline Davidson

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

International criminal courts must not only decide the guilt or innocence of defendants in immensely serious cases, but also make good law in the process. To help them do so, these courts have turned to experts. This Article identifies a type of expert witness that, thus far, has escaped scholarly attention: the crime-definition expert. Crime-definition experts have provided expert reports and testimony to international criminal courts on the meaning of the very crimes with which defendants are charged, including genocide, forced marriage, and recruitment and use of child soldiers. This Article critically evaluates the risks associated with using crime-definition experts …

Predictive Due Process And The International Criminal Court, Samuel C. Birnbaum

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The International Criminal Court (ICC) operates under a regime of complementarity: a domestic state prosecution of a defendant charged before the ICC bars the Court from hearing the case unless the state is unable or unwilling to prosecute the accused. For years, scholars have debated the role of due process considerations in complementarity. Can a state that has failed to provide the accused with adequate due process protections nonetheless bar a parallel ICC prosecution? One popular view, first expressed by Professor Kevin Jon Heller, holds that due process considerations do not factor into complementarity and the ICC could be forced …

Alternate Judges As Sine Qua Nons For International Criminal Trials, Megan A. Fairlie

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

When one of the three judges hearing the case against Vojislav Seselj at the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was disqualified during the deliberations phase of the prosecution, many observers assumed that the multi-year trial would have to be re-heard. Instead, the ICTY opted to begin deliberations anew once a judge--who had not spent a single day participating in the proceeding--had familiarized himself with the trial record. This Article demonstrates why the plan to proceed with a new judge in Seselj's case was both procedurally illegitimate and markedly at odds with the ICTY's statutory guarantee of a fair …

The Faults In "Fair" Trials: An Evaluation Of Regulation 55 At The International Criminal Court, Margaux Dastugue

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Despite its reputation as a "provision of an exceptional nature," Regulation 55 has become one of the most contested procedural devices employed by the judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Hailing from civil law tradition, Regulation 55 permits the ICC to modify the charges against an accused at any time--either during or after the trial--if the judiciary decides it cannot convict the accused on the original charges. This use of Regulation 55 in three of the ICC's seven trials has demonstrated that the ICC cannot effectively safeguard a defendant's fundamental trial rights: the right to be informed of charges, …

Indemnification As An Alternative To Nullification, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The federalization of criminal law arguably threatens the states’ traditional police powers. Congress has criminalized myriad activities the states condone (or at least tolerate); it has denied federal criminal defendants rights they would enjoy in state proceedings; and it has imposed harsher punishments for crimes proscribed by both levels of government. In many instances, Congress’s decision to supplant the policy choices made by the states appears unjustified by any legitimate federal interest. The conventional wisdom suggests there is very little the states themselves can do to stop the federalization of criminal law and the resultant diminution of state prerogatives. The …

The Language Of Mens Rea, Matthew R. Ginther, Francis X. Shen, Richard J. Bonnie, Morris B. Hoffman, Owen D. Jones, Rene Marois, Kenneth W. Simons

Vanderbilt Law Review

To be guilty of a crime, generally one must commit a bad act while in a culpable state of mind. But the language used to define, partition, and communicate the variety of culpable mental states (in Latin, mens rea) is crucially important. For depending on the mental state that juries attribute to him, a defendant can be convicted-for the very same act and the very same consequence-of different crimes, each with different sentences.

The influential Model Penal Code ("MPC") of 1962 divided culpable mental states into four now-familiar kinds: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent.' Both before the MPC and since, …

The Language Of Mens Rea, Owen D. Jones, Matthew R. Ginther, Francis X. Shen, Richard J. Bonnie, Morris B. Hoffman, Rene Marois, Kenneth W. Simons

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

To be guilty of a crime, generally one must commit a bad act while in a culpable state of mind. But the language used to define, partition, and communicate the variety of culpable mental states (in Latin, mens rea) is crucially important. For depending on the mental state that juries attribute to him, a defendant can be convicted-for the very same act and the very same consequence-of different crimes, each with different sentences.

The influential Model Penal Code ("MPC") of 1962 divided culpable mental states into four now-familiar kinds: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent.' Both before the MPC and since, …

Attorney Competence In An Age Of Plea Bargaining And Econometrics, Jeffrey Bellin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The first part of this Essay explores the authors' findings, which do not fit as neatly into mainstream thinking about indigent defense representation as the authors suggest. The study's dramatic findings appear to stem from a counterintuitive form of professional competence: aptitude at convincing one's client to plead guilty.6 As discussed below, skill at obtaining a client's waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial is not the traditional model of effective representation. If modem defense attorney competence primarily manifests in this manner, the implications for indigent defense and criminal justice generally are more revolutionary than the study's authors …

Corticolimbic Gating Of Emotion-Driven Punishment, Owen D. Jones, Michael T. Treadway, Joshua W. Buckholtz, Justin W. Martin, Katharine Jan, Christopher L. Asplund, Matthew R. Ginther, Rene Marois

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Determining the appropriate punishment for a norm violation requires consideration of both the perpetrator's state of mind (for example, purposeful or blameless) and the strong emotions elicited by the harm caused by their actions. It has been hypothesized that such affective responses serve as a heuristic that determines appropriate punishment. However, an actor's mental state often trumps the effect of emotions, as unintended harms may go unpunished, regardless of their magnitude. Using fMRI, we found that emotionally graphic descriptions of harmful acts amplify punishment severity, boost amygdala activity and strengthen amygdala connectivity with lateral prefrontal regions involved in punishment decision-making. …

Once A Criminal? Regulating The Use Of Prior Convictions In Sentencing, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

On November 18, 2013, Nancy J. King, the Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Professor at Vanderbilt Law School, delivered Marquette Law School’s annual George and Margaret Barrock Lecture in Criminal Law. This is an abridgment of that lecture. A longer, essay version appears in the spring 2014 issue of the Marquette Law Review.

In Defense Of American Criminal Justice, J. H. Wilkinson, Iii

Vanderbilt Law Review

The American criminal justice system is on trial. A chorus of commentators-often but not exclusively in the legal academy-has leveled a sharp indictment of criminal process in our country. The indictment charges that large flaws infect nearly every stage of the adjudicatory process. And the prescriptions are equally far-reaching, with calls for abolition of many current practices and an overhaul of the entire system. What is more, the critics issue their condemnations essentially as givens, often claiming that all reasonable people could not help but agree that fair treatment of the accused has been fatally compromised. For these critics, "We …

Copyright Infringement And The Separated Powers Of Moral Entrepreneurship, Joseph P. Fishman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article examines the copyright industries’ “moral entrepreneurs,” sociologist Howard Becker’s term for enterprising crusaders who seek to change existing social norms regarding particular conduct. Becker’s conception of moral entrepreneurship consists of two groups performing separate tasks: rule creators work to translate their preferred norms into legal prohibitions, and then a separate class of enforcers administer those prohibitions. In a limited sense, U.S. copyright law hews to this scheme. Legislation such as the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 and the Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 has assigned the federal government an increasing role in defining intellectual-property …

Empirical Desert And Preventive Justice: A Comment, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This essay is a response to an article by Paul Robinson, Joshua Barton, and Matthew Lister in this issue of New Criminal Law Review that criticizes an article I authored with Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein entitled Putting Desert in Its Place, which was itself an analysis of several works published by Robinson and various coauthors making the case for "empirical desert." Robinson's suggestion that utility can be optimized by a focus on desert as it is viewed by the average citizen opens up a new line of inquiry that could lead to a better appreciation of the influence desert should have on …

Sentencing And Prior Convictions: The Past, The Future, And The End Of The Prior-Conviction Exception To "Apprendi", Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article traces the fascinating history of early efforts to identify defendants and their prior convictions as well as the evolving use of prior convictions in aggravating punishment; examines how contemporary repeat offender penalties fall short of punishment goals and contribute to the racially lopsided profile of punishment today; and critiques potential justifications for the prior conviction exception to the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, arguing that the exception should be abandoned. The article summarizes empirical research testing the relationship between prior convictions and examining the efficacy of repeat offender sentences in reducing recidivism; collects commentary on the use …